A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
03-12-2009 | 05:06 PM
#26
Senior Member
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Bob, I appreciate your thoughtful exposition of your point of view, and I am somewhat in agreement. I tend to be a joiner, and an "we are all in this together" sort of person. I don't like the setting aside of one group or another as a special class. Separate but equal is a difficult concept. It is reality that the large majority of model aircraft are parkflier type aircraft. Never mind that I have seen only one fly, on a soccor field next to our control line field at Hobby Park in Garland TX.
I think the AMA has to get park fliers into the fold. First, how can the AMA be the governing body of model aviation in the USA if a large majority of models sold are sold to non AMA members, as I think is the case with parkfliers. Secondly, I think your average parkflier is an ignorant newbie who could innocently cause an accident or confrontation which would damage all of model aviation in that area. Now I am clearly not talking from extensive observation of the parkflier scene, so I may be completely wrong. However, being me, I doubt it. [>:]
Anyway, I think it is important that the AMA get the parkfliers into the fold, even if it is costly to do. Persistance is not the only virtue, but with without it, the other virtues don't amount to much.
I think the AMA has to get park fliers into the fold. First, how can the AMA be the governing body of model aviation in the USA if a large majority of models sold are sold to non AMA members, as I think is the case with parkfliers. Secondly, I think your average parkflier is an ignorant newbie who could innocently cause an accident or confrontation which would damage all of model aviation in that area. Now I am clearly not talking from extensive observation of the parkflier scene, so I may be completely wrong. However, being me, I doubt it. [>:]
Anyway, I think it is important that the AMA get the parkfliers into the fold, even if it is costly to do. Persistance is not the only virtue, but with without it, the other virtues don't amount to much.
03-12-2009 | 05:54 PM
#27
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Jim, I am in agreement about your fellings about getting new flyers, especially the park-flyer, in the hobby, but as I wrote to Dave a few weeks back things don't change much when it come to the newbe.
Search "Why the AMA is not growing", that was a letter I wrote to the AMA in 04 and my son posted it on RCU, nothing has changed, the park-flyer newbe is not wanted at most fields.
Same house, different room. Anything posted in MA about the PPP for a new RCer in money thrown down the drain. If you get MA you are AMA and unless we can get some of the old AMA to change we are destined to eventually fail despite the great efforts of folks like Dave Mathewson.
Search "Why the AMA is not growing", that was a letter I wrote to the AMA in 04 and my son posted it on RCU, nothing has changed, the park-flyer newbe is not wanted at most fields.
Same house, different room. Anything posted in MA about the PPP for a new RCer in money thrown down the drain. If you get MA you are AMA and unless we can get some of the old AMA to change we are destined to eventually fail despite the great efforts of folks like Dave Mathewson.
03-12-2009 | 09:20 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lexington,
KY
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson
Anyway, I think it is important that the AMA get the parkfliers into the fold, even if it is costly to do. Persistance is not the only virtue, but with without it, the other virtues don't amount to much.
Anyway, I think it is important that the AMA get the parkfliers into the fold, even if it is costly to do. Persistance is not the only virtue, but with without it, the other virtues don't amount to much.
One point I meant to make in my previous comments to you was that the current program, over and above the two tier cost and voting structure, was designed with the goal of bringing park fliers in to their own set of clubs, rather than integrate them into existing clubs. In the long run I've got to question whether that will really strengthen AMA overall.
03-12-2009 | 10:40 PM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Jim, maybe the hobby scene is vastly different in Austin than it is here. I just have never seen enough PFer activity to support a large program. That's my market analysis, it just isn't there.
03-29-2009 | 11:08 PM
#30
My Feedback: (9)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
I don’t see this as a program to aide park fliers but rather an attempt to get a handle on the monster in the closet, called people not familiar with frequency control flying planes small enough to be flown anywhere. 2.4ghz may put an end to this concern, or it may add to the problem providing a source for cheap radio equipment. But one thing is for sure, after the first incident its to late.
I would much rather put the $$$$ towards getting the government to force all foamies into a specific radio band. I agree that trying to sign these guy’s up will be impossible, but we need to get serious about this now before the ability to have a say in the outcome is still ours.
Joe
I would much rather put the $$$$ towards getting the government to force all foamies into a specific radio band. I agree that trying to sign these guy’s up will be impossible, but we need to get serious about this now before the ability to have a say in the outcome is still ours.
Joe
03-29-2009 | 11:33 PM
#31
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St Augustine, FL,
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
ORIGINAL: paladin
I don’t see this as a program to aide park fliers but rather an attempt to get a handle on the monster in the closet, called people not familiar with frequency control flying planes small enough to be flown anywhere. 2.4ghz may put an end to this concern, or it may add to the problem providing a source for cheap radio equipment. But one thing is for sure, after the first incident its to late.
I would much rather put the $$$$ towards getting the government to force all foamies into a specific radio band. I agree that trying to sign these guy’s up will be impossible, but we need to get serious about this now before the ability to have a say in the outcome is still ours.
Joe
I don’t see this as a program to aide park fliers but rather an attempt to get a handle on the monster in the closet, called people not familiar with frequency control flying planes small enough to be flown anywhere. 2.4ghz may put an end to this concern, or it may add to the problem providing a source for cheap radio equipment. But one thing is for sure, after the first incident its to late.
I would much rather put the $$$$ towards getting the government to force all foamies into a specific radio band. I agree that trying to sign these guy’s up will be impossible, but we need to get serious about this now before the ability to have a say in the outcome is still ours.
Joe
Abel
03-29-2009 | 11:54 PM
#32
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Why does the government need to get involved?
have the national organization for RC planes do something about it
The national org has a whole membership tier just for those ParkFliers,
they should take the lead in kicking the PFs off to some subset of the RC freqs and mandate the rest of the freqs for non-PF.
What is stopping the national model airplane org from making it happen in-house,
as an example of how easy it is to do and how well it works.
We just divide up the 72mhz channels,
150k standard RC guys get 55 freqs,
2mil+ PF guys get to fight over 5 freqs
hmmm, even government can see that aint right... wouldnt the government make it
150k glow & gas guys get 5 freqs to share
2mil+ Park guys get 55 freqs to share
have the national organization for RC planes do something about it
The national org has a whole membership tier just for those ParkFliers,
they should take the lead in kicking the PFs off to some subset of the RC freqs and mandate the rest of the freqs for non-PF.
What is stopping the national model airplane org from making it happen in-house,
as an example of how easy it is to do and how well it works.
We just divide up the 72mhz channels,
150k standard RC guys get 55 freqs,
2mil+ PF guys get to fight over 5 freqs
hmmm, even government can see that aint right... wouldnt the government make it
150k glow & gas guys get 5 freqs to share
2mil+ Park guys get 55 freqs to share
03-30-2009 | 12:09 AM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
There is no rash epidemic of Pfers shooting down AMA planes that I'm aware of.
A federal program to enforce PFer frequency compliance would be a great way to put some more unemployed sociology majors in the work force.
A federal program to enforce PFer frequency compliance would be a great way to put some more unemployed sociology majors in the work force.
03-30-2009 | 12:10 AM
#34
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Words like “governing body of model aviation in the USA†and “getting the government to force all foamies into a specific radio band†is just a bit uncomfortable for me to fathom and reminds me of the very reason we are here in America. Freedom of choice is something I hold supreme in our endeavors as US citizens…why are so many apparently eager to forgo it and entrust any one entity to decide things for themselves?
Yes, I understand the power in numbers of a cohesive organization argument…
In my mind, free enterprise needs at least three similar goal intersted entities for the true competition that insures a strong base in which real growth will occur.
Why anyone would say they want growth, in this case our hobby, out of one side of their mouth but out the other side of their mouth they are proponents of a common denominator basing singularity just astounds me to no end.
Choice is like everything else…quit exercising it and will go away.
Sorry…back to regular schedule programming.
Yes, I understand the power in numbers of a cohesive organization argument…
In my mind, free enterprise needs at least three similar goal intersted entities for the true competition that insures a strong base in which real growth will occur.
Why anyone would say they want growth, in this case our hobby, out of one side of their mouth but out the other side of their mouth they are proponents of a common denominator basing singularity just astounds me to no end.
Choice is like everything else…quit exercising it and will go away.
Sorry…back to regular schedule programming.
03-30-2009 | 09:51 AM
#35
My Feedback: (9)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
So how many here have bought an ARF mad in china? How many have seen it build wrong, or it could be done better? Ie. Landing gear to far back on tail draggers (Warbirds). Now put your self in AMA situation with the PF!
I AMA which governs all of model aviation, butdoes not account for 20% (a number I picked out of the air) of park flier sales. Am now telling you that you can only use a fraction of the frequencies that are available.
I know what I would say: we will take that under consideration.
Vs.
If you want to import these into the country that makes up 80% of your sales you will have to use only these frequencies.
Joe
I AMA which governs all of model aviation, butdoes not account for 20% (a number I picked out of the air) of park flier sales. Am now telling you that you can only use a fraction of the frequencies that are available.
I know what I would say: we will take that under consideration.
Vs.
If you want to import these into the country that makes up 80% of your sales you will have to use only these frequencies.
Joe
03-30-2009 | 10:05 AM
#36
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Joe
I am not really following what you are trying to say.
My post was
nothing is stopping the AMA from adopting your idea of limiting PF frequencies,
and it will be easier to later show the FCC how well it works if we actually are already doing what we want the rest of the country to do.
Lead by example.
Lets get the GWS SlowSticks & Tigermoths kicked off freqs that you dont want PFs on,
as an in house rule of AMA,
before we try to tell the rest of america to do as we say but not as we do.
I dont believe this should be done to our fellow AMA members that fly such planes,
nor to our fellow country members that use those public freqs... public freqs we are required to share.
If you dont like using the shared public freqs, get a few million dollars & some lobbyists and get a private freq.
I am not really following what you are trying to say.
My post was
nothing is stopping the AMA from adopting your idea of limiting PF frequencies,
and it will be easier to later show the FCC how well it works if we actually are already doing what we want the rest of the country to do.
Lead by example.
Lets get the GWS SlowSticks & Tigermoths kicked off freqs that you dont want PFs on,
as an in house rule of AMA,
before we try to tell the rest of america to do as we say but not as we do.
I dont believe this should be done to our fellow AMA members that fly such planes,
nor to our fellow country members that use those public freqs... public freqs we are required to share.
If you dont like using the shared public freqs, get a few million dollars & some lobbyists and get a private freq.
03-30-2009 | 11:42 AM
#37
My Feedback: (9)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Kid, I may have miss spoke. I think we are saying the same thing only different. AMA needs to get frequencies dedicated to PF, more importantly make a category for what we have been flying and dedicate frequencies to them excluding the PF from the FCC. As part of that they will have to role this out to you and I (I assumed this as a given and I think that is where I was missing you).
Once that is done they need to come up with a program that teaches AMA members to be careful with their old radio equipment and how to dispose of it as they switch to 2.4 Ghz. Or we the AMA members could make those channels unusable. Buy taking all our old radio equipment and putting it in the hands of PF people. I don’t know how to stop this but I see it coming
Joe
Once that is done they need to come up with a program that teaches AMA members to be careful with their old radio equipment and how to dispose of it as they switch to 2.4 Ghz. Or we the AMA members could make those channels unusable. Buy taking all our old radio equipment and putting it in the hands of PF people. I don’t know how to stop this but I see it coming
Joe
03-30-2009 | 12:13 PM
#38
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
I am a little slow...it takes me awhile but I finally understand. With a few more regs and a little more control, we won't have to worry about this hobby anymore.
03-30-2009 | 09:10 PM
#39
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Kid, I may have miss spoke. I think we are saying the same thing only different. AMA needs to get frequencies dedicated to PF, more importantly make a category for what we have been flying and dedicate frequencies to them excluding the PF from the FCC.
AMA doesnt need to involve the FCC to show initiative
and start this porgram in house for all Muncie Payers.
Wouldnt your idea be easily implemented by AMA declaring all members to follow their new Freq plan:
72mhz channels 29 & below for PFs
72mhz channels 30 & up for non PFs
digital conflict free freqs can be shared
Now, what is stopping AMA from just start doing what you want done,
so they can then later go to the FCC and show how easy it is to do.
Well, what is stopping AMA besides all the PF ama members that would hate this plan.
03-31-2009 | 04:39 AM
#41
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
I'd be interested in learning how anyone plans to get the beginning park flyers to spend $29.00 to join the AMA, when that's about what they spent on the Air Hog, or the el-cheapo hobby shop model that they just bought. I've been talking to a few in my neighborhood who have them, and fly them in the street, or at the local ball field, or a church parking lot. They, for the most part have never heard of the AMA, and those who have don't see any benefit in joining. One of the Father's of the kid who is flying one at the ball field told me that his Kid would probably lose interest in the plane after a couple of weeks, and would be on to something else. This man built models when he was young, but says that his Son is not interested in models, and that he, himself doesn't have time to do them any longer.
I think that this is what you are going to get from the majority of them. A couple of others said that they had heard of the AMA, but could not see any benefit in becoming members. One of them even said that there were rules with the AMA, and that he didn't like rules. The other one said that he didn't have the money to join, and that if he had extra money, that he would spend it on something else.
Bill, AMA 4720
I think that this is what you are going to get from the majority of them. A couple of others said that they had heard of the AMA, but could not see any benefit in becoming members. One of them even said that there were rules with the AMA, and that he didn't like rules. The other one said that he didn't have the money to join, and that if he had extra money, that he would spend it on something else.
Bill, AMA 4720
03-31-2009 | 06:25 AM
#42
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Ozarks,
MO
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
The park program is just another failed program concocted (SP?) by a few that figured they could gain some $ from it.
Ron
Ron
03-31-2009 | 07:27 AM
#43
My Feedback: (10)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Wouldnt your idea be easily implemented by AMA declaring all members to follow their new Freq plan:
72mhz channels 29 & below for PFs
72mhz channels 30 & up for non PFs
digital conflict free freqs can be shared
Now, what is stopping AMA from just start doing what you want done,
so they can then later go to the FCC and show how easy it is to do.
Well, what is stopping AMA besides all the PF ama members that would hate this plan.
72mhz channels 29 & below for PFs
72mhz channels 30 & up for non PFs
digital conflict free freqs can be shared
Now, what is stopping AMA from just start doing what you want done,
so they can then later go to the FCC and show how easy it is to do.
Well, what is stopping AMA besides all the PF ama members that would hate this plan.
03-31-2009 | 08:15 AM
#44
My Feedback: (9)
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
Exactly Vicman!
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 rx’s (I’m switching to 2.4Ghz, 4/year) and trying to find good homes fore the ones I no longer need. But when it comes to the AMA or the FCC telling any of use what to do we all do a risk vs benefit analysis and then make up our own minds. So thinking that AMA can pass a rule and it is going to happen is just not real world.
But if the FCC says mister PF manufacturer you can only sell PF on frequencies 10-29 in the united states the problem is handled. Of coarse AMA will have to role out that program and get guy’s like VicMan and I to understand that if they crash their pride and joy and it is on a channel below 30 there is no insurance unless it is a PF, and visa versa. My only question would be what is the definition of a park flier and what is the definition of what can use channel 30 and above.
-So the plan would be to get FCC to divide the present bands. Forcing manufacturers to produce only on FCC approved channels.
-AMA would have to come up with definitions of PF and the stuff I fly and monitor it so we don’t get any manufacturer end a rounds through a loop hole.
-AMA has to role the program out to you and I with a time delay so guys like Vicman and I can switch without a huge cost.
Joe
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 rx’s (I’m switching to 2.4Ghz, 4/year) and trying to find good homes fore the ones I no longer need. But when it comes to the AMA or the FCC telling any of use what to do we all do a risk vs benefit analysis and then make up our own minds. So thinking that AMA can pass a rule and it is going to happen is just not real world.
But if the FCC says mister PF manufacturer you can only sell PF on frequencies 10-29 in the united states the problem is handled. Of coarse AMA will have to role out that program and get guy’s like VicMan and I to understand that if they crash their pride and joy and it is on a channel below 30 there is no insurance unless it is a PF, and visa versa. My only question would be what is the definition of a park flier and what is the definition of what can use channel 30 and above.
-So the plan would be to get FCC to divide the present bands. Forcing manufacturers to produce only on FCC approved channels.
-AMA would have to come up with definitions of PF and the stuff I fly and monitor it so we don’t get any manufacturer end a rounds through a loop hole.
-AMA has to role the program out to you and I with a time delay so guys like Vicman and I can switch without a huge cost.
Joe
03-31-2009 | 10:54 AM
#45
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
So thinking that AMA can pass a rule and it is going to happen is just not real world.
you want a law to stop others from doing what you do,
or, the classic AMA is above the law attitude.
You want to dictate what public freqs others can use, via the FCC,
while being exempted from that yourself.
You are trying to install a law on a type of plane,
yet not have it applied by plane type
but rather by WHO is making it.
Would an electric foam model aircraft be required to be on these special freqs in your plan?
It seems your answer is Theirs yes, ours no.
Would I have to stop putting my freq in FFF planes I make, and use your mandated PF Freq for it?
Or do I get exempted from this law due to AMA/AMA* Above The Lawliness?
And good luck trying to get the FCC to ask the FAA
what the difference is between a Model Aircraft and a ParkFlyer
so they can write up just who the law applies to
... heck even we cant get a simple binding definition of what a Model Aircraft is .
*AMA $29 Tier
03-31-2009 | 10:59 AM
#46
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
ORIGINAL: paladin
Exactly Vicman!
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 rx’s (I’m switching to 2.4Ghz, 4/year) and trying to find good homes fore the ones I no longer need. But when it comes to the AMA or the FCC telling any of use what to do we all do a risk vs benefit analysis and then make up our own minds. So thinking that AMA can pass a rule and it is going to happen is just not real world.
But if the FCC says mister PF manufacturer you can only sell PF on frequencies 10-29 in the united states the problem is handled. Of coarse AMA will have to role out that program and get guy’s like VicMan and I to understand that if they crash their pride and joy and it is on a channel below 30 there is no insurance unless it is a PF, and visa versa. My only question would be what is the definition of a park flier and what is the definition of what can use channel 30 and above.
-So the plan would be to get FCC to divide the present bands. Forcing manufacturers to produce only on FCC approved channels.
-AMA would have to come up with definitions of PF and the stuff I fly and monitor it so we don’t get any manufacturer end a rounds through a loop hole.
-AMA has to role the program out to you and I with a time delay so guys like Vicman and I can switch without a huge cost.
Joe
Exactly Vicman!
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 rx’s (I’m switching to 2.4Ghz, 4/year) and trying to find good homes fore the ones I no longer need. But when it comes to the AMA or the FCC telling any of use what to do we all do a risk vs benefit analysis and then make up our own minds. So thinking that AMA can pass a rule and it is going to happen is just not real world.
But if the FCC says mister PF manufacturer you can only sell PF on frequencies 10-29 in the united states the problem is handled. Of coarse AMA will have to role out that program and get guy’s like VicMan and I to understand that if they crash their pride and joy and it is on a channel below 30 there is no insurance unless it is a PF, and visa versa. My only question would be what is the definition of a park flier and what is the definition of what can use channel 30 and above.
-So the plan would be to get FCC to divide the present bands. Forcing manufacturers to produce only on FCC approved channels.
-AMA would have to come up with definitions of PF and the stuff I fly and monitor it so we don’t get any manufacturer end a rounds through a loop hole.
-AMA has to role the program out to you and I with a time delay so guys like Vicman and I can switch without a huge cost.
Joe
Seems you do have it all figured out. AMA should be very proud to have another great contributor. You will do very well within the organization. Your plan parallels many within the organizations goals nicely.
Keep working on more great plans, with other likeminded and our worries of the hobby will be over soon.
03-31-2009 | 01:49 PM
#48
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: A Conversation with Dave Mathewson Concerning PPP
PPP?
That was a guessing attempt to get folks that dont want or need AMA to fly,
to join AMA for a $2 savings, with an option for a different magazine for another $26 savings or not
That was a guessing attempt to get folks that dont want or need AMA to fly,
to join AMA for a $2 savings, with an option for a different magazine for another $26 savings or not
